« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. Introduction
Noise affects most of us at some time, with all the attendant consequences for disruption to our work, home life or recreational activities. It is well understood that noise can disrupt people's activities and rest by interfering with speech, study, leisure or sleep. However, it is also established that the individual response to noise can vary considerably, and that non-acoustic factors can significantly influence how individuals react to the same noise.
The proposition that noise levels overall are increasing appears to be a perception common among the general public, though scientifically validated evidence to support such a view has not been established. Just as important as any real or perceived change in noise levels over time, is the apparent change in public expectations over the last decade as to what local authority noise services can and should deliver. Public expectation appears to have shifted significantly in the last decade, sometimes placing challenging demands on local authorities that are difficult to meet or which may clash with other priorities and statutory responsibilities. A selection of the range of difficulties perceived by some Scottish local authorities in delivering effective noise services include:
- restrictions in funding;
- lack of resources (personnel and equipment);
- ineffective statutory powers to address specific noise problems;
- absence of effective liaison and working systems between Environmental Health Departments and other local authority departments, the Police, SEPA and other external agencies.
The problem of neighbourhood and neighbour noise in our towns, cities and in the countryside, remains a major social phenomenon and continues to present local authorities with one of their most exacting and demanding challenges. The latest UK National Noise Attitude Survey [Ref: 1999/2000 National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise, BRE, 2002 - www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/nas9900/index.htm] conducted on behalf of Defra and the Devolved Administrations, indicated that whilst 69% of respondents were generally satisfied with noise levels in their environment, some 8% of respondents said their home life was spoilt either 'quite a lot' or 'totally' by noise. In Scotland, whilst the general responses were not significantly different to those results for the whole of the UK, it was interesting to note that 50% less people reported noise as being in their top five environmental problems than those reported for the UK as a whole.
The scale of the problem is also reflected in the annual statistics on noise complaints collated by REHIS, which appear to have stabilised over the last few years at a high level and which show little sign of diminishing, as Figure 3 demonstrates. The figures for 2002/2003 represent a 100% return from the Local Authorities in Scotland and therefore can be taken to be representative of the scale of the problem of noise nuisance in Scotland. Whilst the recorded overall number of complaints and the relative proportions attributable to different sources have remained fairly constant for the past four years, domestic (neighbour) noise is consistently the cause of the majority of complaints, as Figure 3 also indicates.
Figure 3 - Numbers of Noise Complaints received by Scottish LA's 1999 to 2003
Source REHIS
One of the most surprising discrepancies can be found in the relatively small proportion of noise complaints investigated that were found by local authorities to be justified, which for all complaints received for the years 2001/2 and 2002/3 was 67% and 49% respectively - see Figure 4.
Figure 4 - Relationship between Action Taken and Total Numbers of Noise Complaints Received by Scottish LAs 2001 to 2003
Source REHIS
Whilst anecdotal evidence and the experience of many enforcement officers indicates that a proportion of complaints can be frivolous, unfounded, malicious or could never be confirmed as a statutory nuisance, the findings of the 2003 MORI research into neighbour noise on behalf of Defra, suggests that as many as 1 in 5 of the complainants surveyed had unreasonable expectations of peace and quiet.
(See www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/mori /). However, lack of tolerance or the over- sensitivity of complainants cannot be the only explanation for the gap between the numbers of complaints and the small proportion of statutory nuisances established.
Other possible explanations include:
- the seemingly wide variation in the definition of a complaint used by different local authorities, and
- the differences in the type, structure and scope of noise services provided by different local authorities.
Both of these explanations are likely to further confound the recorded statistics to a greater or lesser extent.
Additionally, there is concern that the gap may be influenced by an emerging imbalance between what local authorities can practicably achieve, and by what the public at large increasingly comes to expect. It is hoped that this imbalance will, to a large extent, be redressed by the new powers provided by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2004 available to local authorities to control neighbour noise.
The National Noise Incidence Study 2000/2001 (United Kingdom) [Ref: BRE report for Defra and the Devolved Administrations, 2002] (see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/nis0001/index.htm ), showed that measured changes in external ambient and background environmental noise levels between 1990 and 2000 were small and there appears to be no conclusive evidence to indicate that levels of environmental noise are rising. Consequently, the corresponding increase in noise complaints between 1990 and 2000 is open to interpretation and lends support to the observation regarding the public's growing intolerance and people's higher expectations regarding a quieter environment. However, the National Noise Incidence Study 2000/2001 was focussed on long-term environmental noise outdoors and did not consider the dominant source of complaint to Local Authorities, which is relatively short-term domestic noise experienced by the sufferer indoors. As a result, increases in the incidence and impact of domestic noise cannot be ruled out as factors influencing the marked increase in noise complaints between 1990 and 2001/2002. It should be noted that Scotland was not included in the 1990 survey and it is therefore not possible to be sure that the changes in noise level in Scotland are small, although there is no reason to suppose this is not the case.
The factors behind the sustained incidence of high levels of public complaint can be speculated as including:
- the public's increased awareness of local authorities' duties to investigate complaints and of their powers to control noise;
- the greater availability to the public and the public's habitual use of powerful sound systems;
- changing social attitudes and lifestyles;
- deficiencies in the residual sound insulation properties of tenement buildings, exacerbated by the growing trend of householders to install laminated flooring.
The factors that may lead an individual to complain about noise are known to be varied and complex. It is evident that it is not simply the level of noise itself that triggers adverse reactions; a host of individual, cultural, attitudinal, lifestyle, demographic and situational factors are likely to influence how a person reacts to a given noise level exposure and what, if any, health effects they may suffer. Research undertaken by the Building Research Establishment ( BRE) ([Ref BRE Report CR 153/97 "Investigation of Domestic Noise Complaints" (see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/domestic/index.htm ) has identified the following noise source factors which influence the degree of disturbance attributable to a noise:
- the volume (perceived loudness) of the noise
- the duration of the noise
- the time of day that the noise occurs
- the inability of the complainant to control the noise
- the sporadic or unpredictable nature of the noise
- the tone of the noise, including low frequency components.
Neighbour (a.k.a. domestic) noise, in the guise of music, parties, televisions, raised voices, dogs barking, DIY etc, remains by far the largest single category of noise complaint made to local authorities throughout Scotland. MORI research in 2003 on behalf of Defra into neighbour noise throughout the UK, which included Dundee, Edinburgh and Thirsk (see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/mori /) provides interesting reading and useful background information for those concerned with making difficult decisions on the scoping, resourcing, management, operation and review of local authority noise services. The conclusions of the study included the following:
- "Many people - close to two in three (63%) - hear noise from their neighbours to some extent. Fewer are actually annoyed by it, although annoyance occurs among just fewer than half (46%) of those who hear noise, or close to one in three (29%) among the population as a whole;
- Neighbour noise is, therefore, a problem that can arise under certain circumstances and in specific 'risk areas'. These risk factors include high density housing, rented accommodation (in both the social and private sectors), areas of deprivation, and urbanity. In contrast, the profile of those less concerned by neighbour noise is consistent with circumstances which would be expected to limit exposure, for example detached housing, high home ownership, and residence in rural/suburban locations in some of the least deprived areas nationally;
- The top priority from the public's perspective in a noise incident is time;
- In terms of responding to the initial complaint and the time it takes to resolve the dispute;
- There is a strong sense, among noise sufferers and stakeholders alike, that the process is laborious and difficult, with repeated warnings but no satisfactory outcome;
- Face-to-face contact with the council or police when the complaint is made, alongside feedback on what has been done about it, is desirable and can significantly improve client satisfaction with the service received;
- There is very little awareness of local noise services, which is an area for immediate attention."
The process of receiving, recording, investigating and as far as possible resolving (whether formally or informally) the invariably increasing caseload of noise complaints is a significant management task. As a result there is an increasing trend for local authorities to adopt more flexible and responsive noise services that go beyond the traditional 9 to 5 weekday office hours as Figure 5 illustrates.
Figure 5 - Authorities In Scotland with an 'Out Of Hours Service' Identified from Questionnaire Returns
The increasingly large numbers and wide variation in the profile of noise complaints received by local authorities, underlines the importance of a flexible approach to the design and delivery of effective noise services, with the expectation that local needs can be addressed in a sustainable way. Consequently, local authority noise services should be managed and operated on the basis of an objective assessment of need so that as many complaints as possible can be investigated and resolved as quickly as is practicable; utilising the resources allocated as effectively as possible, within the exigencies of the authority's other priorities and statutory duties.
2.2. Local Authority Feedback
The consultation exercise with Local Authorities as part of developing this Noise Management Guide revealed a wide range of issues and concerns that need to be addressed. These are discussed in greater detail below.
As part of the development of a Scottish Noise Management Guide ( SNMG) a questionnaire was designed to obtain information from all those Local Authority Environmental Health Service managers working in Scotland with responsibility for noise issues. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect as much relevant information with respect to the following:
- Noise/Noise Enforcement Policy
- Management Strategies and Procedures
- Practical Considerations
- Review Process
- Challenges and Key Issues
- Features and structure of a Noise Management Guide
The questionnaire was circulated to all Local Authorities in Scotland with a request to provide feedback on all appropriate parts of the questionnaire. At the same time a request was made to provide any examples of 'good practice' or success stories where they existed.
In total, some 32 questionnaires were distributed and 18 responses were received i.e. an overall response rate of 56%. A brief description of the most pertinent findings, together with corresponding observations as relevant, is given below. Responses are cross-referenced to the question numbers for ease of reference and commentary provided where appropriate with an analysis of the response.
2.2.1. Management Strategies and Procedures
In addressing noise matters does your Authority have any policy/guidance documents that all authorised officers are expected to comply with? |
Not all LAs appear to have policy/guidance documents dealing with noise that their authorised officers comply with. It would seem essential to the operation of a noise service that a minimum policy should be in place, not least in order to ensure that the members approve the service protocols and standards.
If yes, which of the following applies? Council Policy
Department Policy
Enforcement Procedures
Technical protocols |
It can be seen from the analysis in Figure 6 that of those LAs who responded whilst only approximately 39% have a Council Policy most have a Departmental Policy or an enforcement and/or technical protocol to assist Officers in carrying out their noise function.
Figure 6 - Range of Policies, Procedures and Protocols
Which of these elements are addressed in any of the aforementioned documents? |
A long list of service elements was provided. This is reproduced below.
Advice (Private Prosecution)
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Building Control
Complaint Handling
Complaint Resolution (Definition)
Customer Care
Delegated Authority
Diary Sheet (Time and Event Log)
Drafting of Statutory Notices
Evaluation - Service/Performance Standards
Formal Cautions/Interviews
Gathering Evidence
Informal Action or Warning
Inter-agency Working e.g. Police, Environmental Agency
Inter-department Working Practices/Procedures
Landlord/Tenant Aspects | Noise Awareness/Publicity
Obtaining a Sheriffs Warrant
Out of Normal Hours Service
Record Keeping
Resources (Equipment)
Resources (People)
Safety (Risk Appraisal/Assessment)
Scope of Service
Seizing Equipment
Service of Statutory Notices
Special Needs/ Mental Health Issues
Stakeholder Issues (including Equal Opportunities, Ethnicity Monitoring)
Training
Use of ASBOs (Anti-social Behavioural Orders)
Use of Planning Control System
Other (Please specify) |
Where policy/guidance documents were in place, many were found to address relatively few of the issues identified.
How do you ensure the competency of field officers for implementing the policy/procedures? |
In ensuring the competency of field officers, selection and training were almost always identified. However, requirements for appropriate qualifications were often not identified, although this may be because Local Authorities were content with the more general qualification of a Degree/Diploma in Environmental Health.
Specifically, with regard to on-site noise measurement work, are officers routinely subjected to audiometric examination? |
11% of the authorities that responded carried out audiometric testing of the officers involved in noise measurement. It may well be the case that very few of the authorities have been challenged as to the hearing capabilities of their enforcement officers and therefore do not see the need for routine hearing tests. However, it should be noted that standard audiometric testing can be obtained for as little as £25/person and may therefore be a sensible precaution against any potential challenges within the Courts with respect to the suitability of an enforcement officer to determine nuisance.
2.3. Practical Considerations
This section covered practical issues such as the type of 'Out of Hours ' noise service that operated, if any; the type of equipment used, and collaboration with other authorities and services.
Does your Authority presently provide an 'out of hours' service to deal with noise? |
A wide range of approaches were identified with Glasgow providing a 'premier service' with three full-time officers covering the out of hour's period.
Figure 7 - Range of Out Of Hours Service
What do you believe are the main obstacles to delivering an effective noise service? |
The answers covered a range of topics ranging from funding, inadequate statutory powers and relationships with other departments and agencies. The three primary responses were personnel resources, funding and unrealistic expectations of the complainants. Other responses were of a much smaller percentage and therefore considered not to be particularly significant.
The funding and personnel resources obstacles could most appropriately be addressed by an informed review of the service. This should ensure that overall resources are commensurate with the demands on the service and with member and public expectations. There is a regularly reported difficulty with respect to the public expectation of what the service is able to provide. The provision of appropriate information about the service, its functions and statutory requirements with an education programme may well result in reduced calls on the service to deal with noise issues outside of their remit.
Figure 8 - Main Obstacles to Delivering an Effective Noise Service
2.4. Review
A series of questions on the challenges to the Local Authorities and the difficulties facing local authorities in the execution of their noise service were asked. 67% of authorities responded that they had experienced difficulties when seeking information and the Data Protection Act was often cited as an obstacle.
2.5. Key Noise Issues and Related Matters
Surprisingly, relatively few Local Authorities i.e. 33% have a formal process in place whilst only 28% of these then review their policies and procedures in the light of these trends.
33% of the responses considered that other Government advice and policies resulted in the inadvertent creation of noise problems. Additional explanation included:
- The pressure, despite the advice in PAN 56, for the development of residential housing adjoining roads.
- The development of brown field sites often in conflict with PAN 56.
- The proximity of residential and commercial developments.
- Concerns were expressed regarding extended opening hours for licensed premises.
- Encouragement for housing within town centres (flats over shops) has led to an increase in complaints about anti-social behaviour and noise from commercial premises (pubs, clubs and takeaways).
- Lack of clear coherent simple standards for creating public expectation of what their neighbour should or shouldn't be doing.
Key areas and challenges identified included the following:
- ensuring that the competency of field officers is appropriate to the requirements of a noise service recognising the scale of the service required and specific demographics of an area
- determining the correct level of Noise Service and providing appropriate justification based on meeting legal requirements in dealing with requests for the 'service' and the public expectation of service levels and response
- ensuring that the service is dynamic in responding to requests for service and by adapting to achieve customer satisfaction
- responding to the ever increasing requirements of new legislation in providing a robust service, e.g. Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
- providing an effective noise service where funding is, as with all LA services, a legitimate constraint and recognising that resources are frequently unavailable to meet what in some cases may be the unrealistic and time consuming expectations of the public
- obtaining information in order to deal effectively with noise issues when constrained by the perceived requirements of the Data Protection Act
- analysing noise trends and tailoring the noise service to meet those trends
- ensuring that proper weight is given to noise in the light of conflicting requirements, e.g. new residential development in city centres and existing dwellings located in the vicinity of premises requiring Licences
- ensuring that personnel are kept up to date with all appropriate developments in the noise aspects of their work including new legislation, case law, etc.
- ensuring that noise service clients have ready access to information to help them identify the best possible solution to their noise problem.
2.6. Development of the Noise Management Guide
In researching this guide, the authors drew upon the substantial experience gained in developing a similar guide for local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The specific consultation for this guide provided quality feedback from local authority Environmental Health Services across Scotland which revealed a variety of issues and concerns. As part of the development of this NMG a questionnaire was circulated to all local authority Environmental Health Service managers in Scotland with responsibility for noise services. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect as much relevant information with respect to the following matters:
- LA Management Strategies and Procedures
- Enforcement Policies
- Customer Satisfaction Surveys
- Practical Considerations
- Out of Hours Services
- Liaison Arrangements
- Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures
- Use of ASBO's
- Service Review Process
- Challenges and Key Issues
- Trends in Noise Caseloads
- Features and structure of a Noise Management Guide
References
- Defra, 1999/2000 National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise, produced by BRE, 2002
- Defra, The National Noise Incidence Study
- BRE Report CR 153/97 Investigation of Domestic Noise Complaints
- Defra Final Report Neighbour and Neighbourhood Noise - Phase 1 A Review of European Legislation and Practices produced by Environmental Resources Management ( ERM) March 2002 and Phase 2 Research into Neighbour and Neighbourhood Noise in England, Scotland, Wales, northern Ireland and Other Countries in the EU, 2003 (see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/erm )
- NMG - Questionnaire Survey Report, 2003
- MORI Social Research Institute - Neighbour Noise: Public Opinion Research to Assess its Nature, Extent and Significance, 2003 - www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/mori /
- REHIS published Noise Statistics for Scottish Local Authorities 1999 to 2002
« Previous | Contents | Next »